Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 04:15 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 04:38 AM by John.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 03:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:12 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  He's not interested in learning anything about the worldview of the secular to actually accomplish this, but has apparently been "cargo cult" imitating an author/pastor he idolizes:

http://www.heritagebooks.org/the-brokenh...vangelist/

So is that Jeremy's own book? Is he here desperately trying to develop ways to convince atheists that they are wrong so that he can write it up as a book and make money? Hence his excuse of being here to conduct 'research' (into how to convert us) rather than being here in order to convert us?

Consider

Apparently not. According to Google the author of said book hosts this blog, and in this interview he says he's a pastor from Crawley, West Sussex. Unless J has adopted his name or given false information about his whereabouts we just have two dudes helplessly in love with Christ who bear the same name.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:35 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 04:40 AM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
I know the other guy's a Briton, just saying from his posting history that J Walker seems to idolize that author, is probably the same age or younger, and is imitating what he's read, not unlike other theist posters. Chad Wooters posts, for example, are of about the same style and content as the historical apologist he idolizes.

Just glancing through that blog made me think Jeremy E. Walker isn't the same cat: There's original material in those entries.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:59 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 05:02 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 04:15 AM)John Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  So is that Jeremy's own book? Is he here desperately trying to develop ways to convince atheists that they are wrong so that he can write it up as a book and make money? Hence his excuse of being here to conduct 'research' (into how to convert us) rather than being here in order to convert us?

Consider

Apparently not. According to Google the author of said book hosts this blog, and in this interview he says he's a pastor from Crawley, West Sussex. Unless J has adopted his name or given false information about his whereabouts we just have two dudes helplessly in love with Christ who bear the same name.

Germy Wanker says he attends this Indoctrination Camp :
http://elevationchurch.org/our-beliefs

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-05-2014, 05:06 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 04:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Germy Wanker says he attends this Indoctrination Camp :
http://elevationchurch.org/our-beliefs


Quote:Our Beliefs

Elevation Church aggressively reaches out to people who are far from God.

Yeah they may want to re-word that if they want any success.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 05:58 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The mistake people make is that they think of the brain as being rational. It isn't. We're wetware. The brain is a self organising system that is constantly trying to settle into a stable state in the same way that the body continually tries to maintain homoeostasis.

Emotions aid in this by increasing and decreasing neural activity on a large scale, normally through the use of neurochemicals. She had an emotional need because she was disturbed by the lack of meaning in her life. She found the easiest solution available to her to be contented.

If that's what it takes for her to be happier then good for her. But it doesn't necessarily work for the rest of us.

I think it cool that you have a PhD. I believe you when you say you do.

But it seems to me that you have made a pretty bad argument here when you say that the brain is not rational i.e. irrational.

If that is true, then nothing you just wrote in your post is rational, for you used your cognitive faculties (your brain) to write what you did.

Therefore why accept anything you say or anything anyone else says as rational?

It seems for all of your research, it has not served you well. It has driven you to accept, what seems to me, a demonstrably self-refuting position.

You state:

"The brain is a self organising system that is constantly trying to settle into a stable state in the same way that the body continually tries to maintain homoeostasis.

Emotions aid in this by increasing and decreasing neural activity on a large scale, normally through the use of neurochemicals. She had an emotional need because she was disturbed by the lack of meaning in her life. She found the easiest solution available to her to be contented.

If that's what it takes for her to be happier then good for her. But it doesn't necessarily work for the rest of us."

But when stating this, surely you want us to believe that this is a rational statement. But if our cognitive faculties are simply irrational processes taking place in our irrational brains, then I find it hard to see how anything you say is not irrational.

Maybe you can explain this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 03:12 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  As a white, middle to upper class male in his mid to late 20's,

Jerry is only 21 / 22. You know - the age when you knowitall.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 06:23 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 06:37 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The premises you have are not plausible because they assume too much.

I will wait for you to expound on this.

(23-05-2014 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  They are assumptions. Assumptions without evidence can simply be rejected.

Well now, it seems you have not dealt seriously with the reasons I gave for holding one to be more plausibly true than its negation.

I will wait for you to do that.


(23-05-2014 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  What part of the word 'before' don't you understand? Time must exist for 'before' to have any meaning.

I have already explained why this is not a defeater of either premise.

Dr. Craig will speak for me here:

Maybe they'll say that causes always precede their effects in time. But then ask them if they think simultaneous causal relations are impossible. Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling!

Indeed, you could ask them if all causation isn't in the end simultaneous. Imagine C and E are the cause and the effect. If C were to vanish before the time at which E is produced, would E nevertheless come into being? Surely not! But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to E's appearance C's disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between C's disappearance and E's appearance. But then why or how E came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it.

They might say that even simultaneous causation presupposes time. Yes, the cause and effect occur at the same time. But then why couldn't such a causal dependency exist timelessly? In simultaneous causation the cause and effect exist co-incidently. But in a timeless state two things can exist co-incidently in a dependence relation. So if simultaneous causation is possible, I see no reason to think timeless causation is impossible. At least we'd need an argument to show that it is.

In any case, even if time is a precondition for causality, why should that preclude God's being the cause of the universe? Many Christian philosophers and theologians, perhaps the majority today, think that God has existed for infinite past time and created the physical universe a finite time ago. This was Isaac Newton's view as well. He thought absolute time was just God's duration, which is from eternity to eternity. Ask your friends why they think Newton's view was wrong.

If they say, Janey, that "the universe is all of time and space," ask them how they know that. Maybe God existed prior to His creating the universe. Are they begging the question by assuming that the universe is all there is? If they say that time cannot exist without space, then point out to them that even a sequence of mental events, thoughts passing in succession, is sufficient to generate a before/after sequence and, hence, time. If God has a stream of consciousness, then there would exist time prior to the beginning of the universe. So what's the problem?

Suppose they say that God must be the Creator of time if He exists. You could say that God creates time from eternity, just as a chandelier could being hanging from the ceiling from eternity; or you could say, as I think, that God is timeless without (not before!) the universe and that time comes into being at the moment He creates the universe. In that case we're back to simultaneous causation again: God's creating the universe is simultaneous with the universe's coming into being (what could be more obvious?). So what's the problem?

Maybe they'll say that a timeless being can't cause something in time. But then you can say that perhaps God became temporal at the moment He created the universe. He's timeless without the universe and in time with the universe. Ask them to show you any incoherence in that idea.

In fact, here you should turn the tables and ask them how time could come into existence with no causal conditions whatsoever. That is truly bizarre. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? How could they begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions?

If they pose your question in reply, Andrew, then point out that God never began to exist and so doesn't need a cause. Indeed, in thinking that God must have a cause, aren't they admitting what they at first denied, namely, that causation is applicable outside of space and time after all?



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causation...z32dPWZ0O7


(23-05-2014 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Non sequitur. How does that follow?

it follows because the proponent of such a line of reasoning is assuming that causes can only exist in the natural/material universe which itself assumes that naturalsim is true.

IOW, the proponent is arguing that since absolute space-time is the sum total of all the constituents of reality, that therefore there can be no causes existing timelessly.

So it seems that when one uses this line of reasoning, one is simply begging the question for naturalism.

In fact, the KCA is a defeater of naturalism because it concludes that there exists a cause for the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 07:11 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:02 PM)Leo Wrote:  Who created your god anyways ?

Which is greater:

That which exists necessarily, or that which exists contingently.

Neither; it is a meaningless question. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In fact, the KCA is a defeater of naturalism because it concludes that there exists a cause for the universe.

No, the KCA assumes that which nobody knows. It defeats nothing, and answers nothing. It's actually more plausible that the contents of the universe are eternal rather that assuming an external, eternal, supernatural cause for it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like evenheathen's post
24-05-2014, 08:18 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 08:22 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 07:14 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In fact, the KCA is a defeater of naturalism because it concludes that there exists a cause for the universe.

No, the KCA assumes that which nobody knows. It defeats nothing, and answers nothing. It's actually more plausible that the contents of the universe are eternal rather that assuming an external, eternal, supernatural cause for it.

In light of the current findings of contemporary cosmology and astronomy, it is more plausible that the universe is not eternal in the past.

So one has to deal with that honestly.

Now by all means, if you or anyone else wants to say that something can come from nothing without a cause then that is fine.

I do not think it is an intellectually defensible position that's all.

It seems that such a position would be the last one a person would espouse who claims that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The evidence we have does not support the view that the universe is eternal.

The evidence at our disposal leads us to conclude that things that come into existence have causes.

So to say, "Well the universe is eternal" or "the universe does not need a cause" is to simply ignore the evidence we have. Those that hold these views do so despite the evidence to the contrary, not because of the evidence.

That is my whole argument.

It demonstrates that one cannot reject the KCA on the grounds that the premises are unsupported by logical and rational argumentation corroborated by scientific evidence.

In fact, of all the arguments, it seems to me that this one would be the one that would be most persuasive to the scientifically minded. And in some cases where those who are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads it is.

But those who would rather believe that the universe just popped into existence without a cause from nothing are not going to be persuaded by any argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: